Medical Myths Exposed: Evidence Rejects 8 Glasses of Water a Day

[Ivan Seeking]

Researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis hunted medical literature for evidence on each claim.

They found no evidence supporting the need to drink eight glasses of water a day.

In fact, studies suggest that adequate fluid intake is often met by drinking juice, milk, and even caffeine-rich tea and coffee.[continued]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7153880.stm

Oh thank goodness. My health just improved dramatically...again.

It used to be that coffee was bad and sure to be the death of me. Now it acts as a supply of water, it is high in antioxidants [the greatest source by far in many diets], and it may even help prevent the onset of type II diabetes in adults who are predisposed to it, as I am.
http://www.physorg.com/news6067.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1213

 

[Evo]

I've been saying this to people for decades. Tea, sodas, coffee, juices, all contain water, you can get your required daily "water" from any of these. Just because the water is flavored doesn't stop it from being "water". They'd say 'oh no, flavored water won't work, it has to be plain water". Like if it's flavored, your body won't absorbed it.

 

[Doc Al]

Mmmm... I'm sipping an antioxidant-rich health drink made from roasted beans right now!

 

[turbo]

Mmmm... I'm sipping an antioxidant-rich health drink made from roasted beans right now!

Me too! Mine's fresh out of an espresso machine - I hope that means more anti-oxidants, because it sure means more caffeine.

 

[Doc Al]

Caffeine... the real vitamin C!

 

[jim mcnamara]

I've been saying this to people for decades. Tea, sodas, coffee, juices, all contain water, you can get your required daily "water" from any of these. ... They'd say 'oh no, flavored water won't work, it has to be plain water". Like if it's flavored, your body won't absorbed it.

A small amount of sugar and a tiny bit of potassium or sodium ions in the water enhance the absorption and retention of water. Sounds like soda and some potato chips to me. Or a sports drink like gator ade. Or Pedialyte. All the same idea.

 

[hypatia]

I knew this all along too. Years back I went on a 5 day high altitude training, for a job that was to take me well above sea level. They said pack only what you need to survive. I of course packed my little french coffee press, and 1/2 lb of coffee.

I was scolded, and was told coffee wasn't a survival item. Then I informed them, that without it, I would half to toss each one of them off the mountain, in a caffeine deprived rage. So yes, it was a survival item for them.
As they were drinking their water and hunkering down in snow shelters, I was drinking coffee, lashing branches together in a zoobly like shelter, compleat with fire pit and sleeping platform, and decrotive accessories.
Coffee rules!

 

[daveb]

The reason coffee isn't recommended for things such as exercise, etc. is because of its diuretic effect. However, as everyone has pointed out, it's still water based. I imagine it's also not very good if you have acid reflux.

 

[gravenewworld]

Antioxidants and their so called "anti cancer" benefits may be the biggest medical myth out there these days.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/antioxidantsprevention

Considerable laboratory evidence from chemical, cell culture, and animal studies indicates that antioxidants may slow or possibly prevent the development of cancer. However, information from recent clinical trials is less clear. In recent years, large-scale, randomized clinical trials reached inconsistent conclusions.

Coffee, juices, sodas, and other soft drinks are terrible for you because of their high caloric content. After adding cream and sugar a typical coffee probably has around 200 calories. You could drink the coffee black though. But IMO, if you are going to drink black coffee, drink tea instead (no sugar or anything else added). It tastes much better.

 

[Moonbear]

Antioxidants and their so called "anti cancer" benefits may be the biggest medical myth out there these days.

Thanks for that reference. This is something that I occasionally wonder about myself. Sure, there's laboratory evidence of benefits of antioxidants in preventing things like tumor growth, but most of that is "dumping" an antioxidant directly on cells in a dish. When we eat foods rich in antioxidants, do they actually get absorbed in that form and out to any places where the cancer cells may be developing in high enough doses to have any real effect? I don't know. However, most things promoted as rich in antioxidants and "good for you" also just happen to be fruits and vegetables rich in vitamins that we do need.

Coffee, juices, sodas, and other soft drinks are terrible for you because of their high caloric content. After adding cream and sugar a typical coffee probably has around 200 calories. You could drink the coffee black though. But IMO, if you are going to drink black coffee, drink tea instead (no sugar or anything else added). It tastes much better.

There's nothing terrible about consuming 200 calories. It's the people who consume several servings of juice and soft drinks in a day and don't count the calories in those beverages as part of their calorie intake that run into problems.

Though, you're exaggerating the calorie content of coffee with milk. A teaspoon of sugar is about 20 calories (depending on how level (15 calories) or heaping (25 calories) you make it), and a tablespoon of whole milk is about 9 calories, and likewise, the cup of filter brewed coffee is about 9 calories.

http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories-sugar.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/NU00185
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/14209.html

So, even if you add in two heaping spoons of sugar with your milk in coffee, you're getting only about 70 calories. Limit yourself to a level teaspoon of sugar, a splash of milk, and your cup of coffee is a mere 33 calories. If you add more milk (i.e., a latte), you're adding calories, but you're also getting all the nutrients in milk that are good for you. Nothing bad about that at all.

If you switch to tea, you only have 2 calories from the tea itself, compared with 9 in coffee...you save yourself a whopping 7 calories.

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/14355.html

Pace the kitchen floor for 2 min while waiting for the coffee to brew, and you're almost even.
http://www.onlinebangalore.com/heal/calo_min.htm

(As for preference for black coffee vs plain tea, that's a matter of personal taste...I'd rather drink black coffee than tea without milk and sugar...at least if we're talking caffeinated, black tea.)

 

[renacat]

The reason coffee isn't as good as drinking plain water for hydration is because caffeine is a diuretic and prevents your body from absorbing as much water. I suppose if you drank enough of it that wouldn't be a problem...=P

 

[gravenewworld]

There's nothing terrible about consuming 200 calories. It's the people who consume several servings of juice and soft drinks in a day and don't count the calories in those beverages as part of their calorie intake that run into problems.

Though, you're exaggerating the calorie content of coffee with milk. A teaspoon of sugar is about 20 calories (depending on how level (15 calories) or heaping (25 calories) you make it), and a tablespoon of whole milk is about 9 calories, and likewise, the cup of filter brewed coffee is about 9 calories.

http://www.annecollins.com/calories/calories-sugar.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/calories/NU00185
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/14209.html

So, even if you add in two heaping spoons of sugar with your milk in coffee, you're getting only about 70 calories. Limit yourself to a level teaspoon of sugar, a splash of milk, and your cup of coffee is a mere 33 calories. If you add more milk (i.e., a latte), you're adding calories, but you're also getting all the nutrients in milk that are good for you. Nothing bad about that at all.

If you switch to tea, you only have 2 calories from the tea itself, compared with 9 in coffee...you save yourself a whopping 7 calories.

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/14355.html

Pace the kitchen floor for 2 min while waiting for the coffee to brew, and you're almost even.
http://www.onlinebangalore.com/heal/calo_min.htm

(As for preference for black coffee vs plain tea, that's a matter of personal taste...I'd rather drink black coffee than tea without milk and sugar...at least if we're talking caffeinated, black tea.)

Agreed there is nothing wrong with consuming 200 calories, but you have millions of people out there who consume 2,3,or 4+ more cups of coffee everyday. People don't realize how many calories they are consuming from just beverages alone.

If you have a coffee with two of those small cream packs and 2 packs of sugar you are approaching 200 calories (according to the mayo site). I know plenty of people who use 2-3 creams and 3 or more packs of sugar for just 1 cup of coffee. Many people get their coffee at work, and at work places those small cream packs are much more available than a gallon of whole milk.

This is just coffee, we aren't even going to touch juices like snapple drinks which have a WHOPPING 48 grams of sugar per serving (and a bottle of snapple has about 2.5 servings). Even orange juice that you buy in a carton has a huge amount of sugar in it per serving since it is concentrated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wonder what the caloric content of a 7-11, 16 ounze, French Vanilla coffee might be; probably about 10,000 calories or so?

Funny, I've followed the antioxidant business from the start. I think it was the father of a chem professor of mine who long ago [perhaps as much as forty years ago] became convinced of the dangers of free radicals [not the type that scares Russ but the other kind]. Years later the antioxidant craze came along which seemed to vindicate this old claim. Now we are back to square one?

 

[Evo]

I wonder what the caloric content of a 7-11, 16 ounze, French Vanilla coffee might be; probably about 10,000 calories or so?

Funny, I've followed the antioxidant business from the start. I think it was the father of a chem professor of mine who long ago [perhaps as much as forty years ago] became convinced of the dangers of free radicals [not the type that scares Russ but the other kind]. Years later the antioxidant craze came along which seemed to vindicate this old claim. Now we are back to square one?

Actually, if you read the link that gravenewworld supplied, it appears that beta carotene may increase the chances of lung cancer, doesn't seem that other anti-oxidants have been found to cause problems and could be beneficial. I never did like carrots.

• A 1994 cancer prevention study entitled the Alpha-Tocopherol (vitmain E)/Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study (ATBC) demonstrated that lung cancer rates of Finnish male smokers increased significantly with beta-carotene and were not affected by vitamin E. (2)

• Another 1994 study, the Beta-Carotene and Retinol (vitamin A) Efficacy Trial (CARET), also demonstrated a possible increase in lung cancer associated with antioxidants. (3)

Sounds like eating may be hazardous to your health.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Funny, I've followed the antioxidant business from the start. I think it was the father of a chem professor of mine who long ago [perhaps as much as forty years ago] became convinced of the dangers of free radicals [not the type that scares Russ but the other kind]. Years later the antioxidant craze came along which seemed to vindicate this old claim. Now we are back to square one?

No. Not square one. Maybe square four or five.

It has been established that foods like dark green veggies - brassicas - and dark orange vegetables when regularly consumed do affect occurrences of colorectal cancers - it lowers them, for example. Turmeric in the diet also has a positive effect on some types of cancers. Cinnamon tea lowers blood pressure. Note that these are natural products, not dietary supplements, tree bark (cinnamon), a rhizome (turmeric), and leaves and stems (brassicas).

The science of what food does good/bad to you with regard to cancer risk is solid in terms of large population studies. People who consume them fare better. Period.

It's going from the other direction that still gives very confusing results. You've heard of the 'vitamin paradox'? You can cure scurvy with Vitamin C pills. But, a lot of what antioxidants and vitamins as supplements cannot do in vivo, foods with the same vitamins and antioxidants do accomplish in vivo.

Bottom line: raw, naked vitamins and especially antioxidants do not seem to affect disease processes in people in the same way those things apparently work when they are part of food.

I personally think acetyl salicylic acid is a vitamin After all, look at all of what you fix with aspirin. Too bad it eats your stomach lining for breakfast- but then high doses of a lot of vitamins are toxic in a lot of ways. I vote for an "RDA" for aspirin or maybe willow bark tea that give you about 40-80mg of the stuff.

 

[gravenewworld]

I wonder what the caloric content of a 7-11, 16 ounze, French Vanilla coffee might be; probably about 10,000 calories or so?

LOL yeah probably.

Funny, I've followed the antioxidant business from the start. I think it was the father of a chem professor of mine who long ago [perhaps as much as forty years ago] became convinced of the dangers of free radicals [not the type that scares Russ but the other kind]. Years later the antioxidant craze came along which seemed to vindicate this old claim. Now we are back to square one?

The fact that anti cancer activity is seen when foods high in antioxidants are consumed may not be from the antioxidants themselves, but from the fact that the food consumed is healthy for you in the first place. There are still many other things in foods that researchers have yet to identify and have no idea what they do. There are some drugs out there that work only as a mixture of two or more compounds that work synergistically. When you separate each compound you may not see any efficacy at all. Such may be the case for antioxidants. There's simply other things in the food products that we consume that all work together to produce anti cancer activity, not just the antioxidants themselves.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I personally think acetyl salicylic acid is a vitamin After all, look at all of what you fix with aspirin. Too bad it eats your stomach lining for breakfast- but then high doses of a lot of vitamins are toxic in a lot of ways. I vote for an "RDA" for aspirin or maybe willow bark tea that give you about 40-80mg of the stuff.

That was pretty much the idea that our old friend had. He wondered if taking a low dose of asprin every day might provide the basic benefits generally attributed to antioxidants today.

Of course they do sell low dose [81 mg] asprin for heart patients.
http://www.bayeraspirin.com/products/ar/ar_als81.htm